The Skeptics Society Forum • View topic - original sin and salvation

What irrationalist thought of the notion of original sin ?No Adam or Eve ever sinned and we do not pass our bad actions on to our posterity. How can liberal Christians support the notion ? Listen to all those foolish preachers talk about sin - affronts to a god. Sin means nothing to us rationalists. We recognize right and wrong [ see inverted theistic argument on morality] in relation to a rational morality, not to a god . Morality would impinge on a god and the one of the Tanakh and the Testament one judges immoral . No rational being would require salvation ,but would reqire rehabilitatiion. Oh, that is the notion of purgaotry. Another imaginary place . Why would this so-called sin require a hell to enforce its punishment [ see thread on hell].

Reason saves! Logic is the bane of theists.Fr. G riggs rests in his Socratic ignorance.and humble ' Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Morgan-L.G. Lamberth "Religion is mythinformation.' Englishman " God is in a worse position than the tin man who had a body to which a mind could enters whilst He has neither." " God is that married bachelor and so cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!" carneades.aimoo.com

Well, when you think about it, if you wanted to control a population, and scare other people into your thinking, how are you going to do it? I know... lets create a place where if they do not follow your teachings, that they will exist in torment forever! Lets think of the worse pain that most agree on... lets see, yeah, fire! And another fear that many have, yeah drowning. Thus... drowning in a Lake of Fire! What else, hmm, sulfur smells really bad so why not include it?

Actually, it is easy to see how someone could come up with this idea. "Scare them until they come to you shivering in fear," the Christian motto for 2,000 years.

Reviewing the massive amount of unsubstantiated or anecdotal claims, testimony, non-validated observational data, and philosophical studies, they actually suggest the existence of such an entity as the "soul." Although it cannot be determined what it is or if it is factual or not, it is my personal belief that there may very well be something there, and that it is worth looking into.

You are born into the world a sinner. You are guilty, at birth. Guilt is a much stronger emotion, with farther reaching impact.

With Guilt instilled from your earliest teachings, religion can control you throughout your entire life. Hell being such a horrid place only enforces the guilt....you deserve it, you're guilty. You do NOT deserve Heaven..but you can get there....thus proving God's 'love'.

Guilt is the key. Without guilt, there can be no sin.

When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

However, guilt leads to a fear of the self, since guilt leads to self-doubt, and self-doubt leads to fearing what one might do, when leads to fear over what might have done.

And so the vicious circle continues, all the while religious leaders earn more money from their followers.

Reviewing the massive amount of unsubstantiated or anecdotal claims, testimony, non-validated observational data, and philosophical studies, they actually suggest the existence of such an entity as the "soul." Although it cannot be determined what it is or if it is factual or not, it is my personal belief that there may very well be something there, and that it is worth looking into.

And meanwhile the fleeced (oops, I mean, the flock), keep jumping through hoops drawn ever deeper into the delusion.

Guilt is a powerful form of control. I know all about guilt and how insidious it can be.

Our species may well be in a transitional evolutionary phase wherein we either use our minds to survive or become extinct in consequence of idiotic religious behavior.-Baubles of Blasphemy-Edwin F. Kagin

And preachers tell their flocks of sheep that they have a yearning for his god. That keeps them in line, I would think. I do covet women! Yet , those preachers aver that they are happy in Christ - [see the thread on Christ, the jerk] . Look at all the happy religious in asylums! The original "sin" is faith- the I just say so, the circular argument.[Articulett]. Let's discuss how the churches sin. Errantists know that there was no Adam and Eve who sinned ,yet say the Garden of Even episosde is a metaphor for us sinners. We err, but do not sin as that is just religious nonsense. If that god were omniscient , it knew what would happen . It would not have that tree in the first place and in the second ,it would not have seen the eating of the fruit as wrong .

Reason saves! Logic is the bane of theists.Fr. G riggs rests in his Socratic ignorance.and humble ' Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Morgan-L.G. Lamberth "Religion is mythinformation.' Englishman " God is in a worse position than the tin man who had a body to which a mind could enters whilst He has neither." " God is that married bachelor and so cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!" carneades.aimoo.com

Hey Griggs: the biggest compassion story in the Bible - the lost sheep. the shepherd risks all to save it. what happens to a sheep after that? a stick up the butt and onto the fire. I'd rather be lost than cooked and eaten.

You are born into the world a sinner. You are guilty, at birth. Guilt is a much stronger emotion, with farther reaching impact.

With Guilt instilled from your earliest teachings, religion can control you throughout your entire life. Hell being such a horrid place only enforces the guilt....you deserve it, you're guilty. You do NOT deserve Heaven..but you can get there....thus proving God's 'love'.

Guilt is the key. Without guilt, there can be no sin.

If guilt is the key, then fear is the lock.

In my experience, guilt and fear work hand-in-hand to maintain control. Lately, however, fear seems to be more of a motivator (i.e. use of religiously based fear as a political tactic).

"Read it because we need more atheists, and nothing can get you there faster than reading the damn Bible." - Penn Jillette

Brain, how true. So much talk of sin is about sex. Why? The real origianl'sin' is the refusal to reason. If people think they are sinners, do they live worse lives? Does giving testimony about their sins or talking to a priest help them overcome wrong doings? Does talk of sin make them worse? I suppose it varies with the person. We have original sin talk to overcome. Our experts and writers need to discuss original sin and show it to be nothing at all.

Reason saves! Logic is the bane of theists.Fr. G riggs rests in his Socratic ignorance.and humble ' Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Morgan-L.G. Lamberth "Religion is mythinformation.' Englishman " God is in a worse position than the tin man who had a body to which a mind could enters whilst He has neither." " God is that married bachelor and so cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!" carneades.aimoo.com

clarsct wrote:Fear vs. guilt. With fear ytou can only motivate people enough to avoid the unpleasantness. Also, if you use fear constantly, it loses its punch. See the terror alerts for an example.

Guilt, though....guilt is always fresh and always ready to be manipulated. Once you have someone in self-loathing, you own them forever.

I assure you, fear might get people through the door, but guilt keeps them there.

Guilt is the best way to keep someone in thrall. It's cousin shame works very well also. But guilt is the king. Got experience with both.

Our species may well be in a transitional evolutionary phase wherein we either use our minds to survive or become extinct in consequence of idiotic religious behavior.-Baubles of Blasphemy-Edwin F. Kagin

it might help to dsistinguish amongst the several meanings for original sin. One person responsible for bringing forward a few ideas about it is Augustine. The ideas might be older than him, but he is a main figure in the "original sin" business.

His ideas on it span a range - from sex being a bodily state where concentration on God is lost and therefore sin is present by definition - lack of God-consciousness, to another idea, to something like a viral model of sin where it was passed through sex from Adam and Eve to their progeny. another weird idea of his was that souls were predestined to be redeemed or not.

One must wonder what the conservative Christians are going to do when sex becomes obsolete? Oops... I almost revealed a "secret" plan. Forget you ever heard that.

Back on topic... Original sin is a way to keep the entire Earth under control. Think about it, if everyone is descended from Adam and Eve (or so the Bible claims), then the way to claim that everyone is evil is to have some sin passed down from the "first two humans," thus, no one is exempt.

Then, once you have declared everyone as sinful because of this, you offer the only method to relieve this sin, thus you have total control.

Reviewing the massive amount of unsubstantiated or anecdotal claims, testimony, non-validated observational data, and philosophical studies, they actually suggest the existence of such an entity as the "soul." Although it cannot be determined what it is or if it is factual or not, it is my personal belief that there may very well be something there, and that it is worth looking into.

snooziums wrote:Back on topic... Original sin is a way to keep the entire Earth under control. Think about it, if everyone is descended from Adam and Eve (or so the Bible claims), then the way to claim that everyone is evil is to have some sin passed down from the "first two humans," thus, no one is exempt.

Then, once you have declared everyone as sinful because of this, you offer the only method to relieve this sin, thus you have total control.

It is amazing, they define the disease (sin), and then they claim to offer the only cure (salvation). All the control religion has stems from this.

You label someone a "sinner" and induce guilt and shame and then tell them you have a remedy for it. Then once they have "bought" the cure, you tell them that they have to keep watch for any further "sin" and reapply the remedy (confession). To not do so hurts the feelings of the daddy in the sky-more guilt and shame. It sets up a horrible cycle that is hard to escape.

Our species may well be in a transitional evolutionary phase wherein we either use our minds to survive or become extinct in consequence of idiotic religious behavior.-Baubles of Blasphemy-Edwin F. Kagin

Mordread wrote:The funny thing is, most Catholic priests (that I've met anyway) will say that the story of Original Sin is just a parable.

It's only the Fundie protestants that believe this crock of {!#%@} actually happened as written.

No, there are a growing number of catholic fundies who take a more literal approach to the bible. They watch EWTN and very nearly worship John Paul II. They send their children to Ava Marie University and read First Things magazine. The numbers are small, but growing.

Our species may well be in a transitional evolutionary phase wherein we either use our minds to survive or become extinct in consequence of idiotic religious behavior.-Baubles of Blasphemy-Edwin F. Kagin

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the discussion of Original Sin begins with the following statement:

“God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seemed to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.” {1994, Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶385}

There are two sources of suffering, according to the Church: “the limitations proper to creatures”; and “moral evil” by which is meant Original Sin. These two sources are not evenly distributed. The statement appears to give more weight to the latter cause than it does to the former. Therefore we must assume that the position of the Catholic Church is that “as creatures we are fated to suffer, though we suffer much more as a result of Original Sin”.

But aside from Original Sin, what exactly are the “limitations proper to creatures”? That phrase sounds suspiciously like the prelude to a circular argument such as the following: If all God’s works are good, any limitations or sufferings are also good and therefore “proper to creatures”. That is, suffering and pain was always part of God’s plan for his creatures. As one of his creatures, man was no different, and was doomed to participate in this “limitation” as well.

In other words, God created us to suffer.

Suffer? Yes. Created to die? No. According to the Genesis story, God created Adam with the capacity for eternal life:

The LORD God gave man this order: “You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.”Genesis 2:16-17

One of Catholicism’s great apologists, St. Augustine is emphatic on this point, that Adam would not have experienced death had he not committed Original Sin. {Augustine, On the Merits of Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book I, Chpt2}

The Catholic Church still today agrees with this point:

“Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.” {1994, Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶391}

Death is a direct result of Original Sin. Were we not stained with the indelible mark of that first bad choice, we would not experience the ultimate suffering of death. In other words, humanity dies because, and only because of it’s sinful nature. Aside from the obvious guilt-laden overtones of such a belief, there is a more fundamental question that, if answered will, I suspect, tell us more about the true nature of this “God” than some believers would wish to know:

If man was created to live forever but fell, why do other things die?

If man is burdened with death as a result of his actions, what did the fish do to deserve death? (Original Fin?) What about dogs, cats, lions and tigers and bears (Oh, my!)? Why do trees die? Grass? Flowers? Why do insects die?

If one is to persist in the belief of Original Sin, one must believe either:

A. God created all creation to suffer and die, except for Man, who chose it for himself.

B. God created all creation to live forever, but Man ruined it for everyone.

The first choice is implausible. Simply put, Man is a part of nature, built from the same material, sharing a huge percentage of DNA and exhibiting similar survival needs (food, water, shelter, sex). What change would have had to occur to transform a man and woman from immortal to mortal while still maintaining such an extraordinary similarity to the world in which they live? What kind of God would create a world in which predators feed off the young and helpless? What kind of God would create viruses to kill millions of species? Even more, what kind of God would create a world in which all the life-forms die except for one? That sounds way too bizarre, even for God.

The second choice is even worse because it makes God into a vindictive son-of-a-bitch. This God is even worse than a terrorist who kills all his hostages, their relatives, shoots their pets, then pisses on their lawn. If this were the correct scenario, God essentially said to Adam “Look, I told you not to do that; but you did it anyway. Now not only am I going to kill you and Eve. I’m also gonna kill every living thing on the planet. And not just once. No. I’m gonna make death permanent. Now, don’t you wish you listened to me, Buddy?” (Pack your bags, we’re going on a guilt trip...)

I know that for many people, believers and nonbelievers alike, Genesis is “just a story.” But for centuries believers thought it was the literal truth, and many still do today. The fact that the Catholic Church (the largest Christian denomination in the world) still holds fast to the “death by Original Sin” concept is enough to show that the “story” is still taken seriously, if not literally. Certainly the Catholics are not alone in that regard. The concept of Original Sin is one of the foundations of Christianity, but when looked at logically, it is fundamentally nuts.

I never said that it wasn't still the official position of the Catholic church - hell, it's only been within the last 60 years or so that they changed their official position on whether the Earth was flat or not.

However, individual priests (again, that I've met) seem to hold views of the story that are independant of the church's official position.

"Read it because we need more atheists, and nothing can get you there faster than reading the damn Bible." - Penn Jillette

snooziums wrote:Back on topic... Original sin is a way to keep the entire Earth under control. Think about it, if everyone is descended from Adam and Eve (or so the Bible claims), then the way to claim that everyone is evil is to have some sin passed down from the "first two humans," thus, no one is exempt.

Then, once you have declared everyone as sinful because of this, you offer the only method to relieve this sin, thus you have total control.

It is amazing, they define the disease (sin), and then they claim to offer the only cure (salvation). All the control religion has stems from this.

You label someone a "sinner" and induce guilt and shame and then tell them you have a remedy for it. Then once they have "bought" the cure, you tell them that they have to keep watch for any further "sin" and reapply the remedy (confession). To not do so hurts the feelings of the daddy in the sky-more guilt and shame. It sets up a horrible cycle that is hard to escape.

It's like when a psychic tells you you are cursed and that it will take some large sum of money to get rid of the curse. Except, the psychic can be prosecuted for fraud. Preachers seldom are. I did just read of 2 priests in Fort Lauderdale Florida who were convicted and/or defrocked of using church funds for Vegas gambling sprees, prostititutes, trips, luxury items, etc. I know Catholics (the religion I was raised in) will say "a few bad apples..."--But if the basic premise of Catholicism isn't true, then they are all guilty of spreading ignorance, lies, and fear, in the name of "good". All preachers and priests are guilty of defrauding their flock as far as I'm concerned.

Oh you blasphemer--come now--you don't really believe god would kill his kid (who was really him) because some chick opened a box?--God can't be that capricious--you have to be a defiant woman AND consume from the "tree of knowledge" to piss god off so he can damn humankind for all eternity, you silly!

Oh you blasphemer--come now--you don't really believe god would kill his kid (who was really him) because some chick opened a box?--God can't be that capricious--you have to be a defiant woman AND consume from the "tree of knowledge" to piss god off so he can damn humankind for all eternity, you silly!

Why are women always blamed for bringing sorrow into the world? I think it is a conspiracy by religious fundamentalists-they've always had a thing against women anyway.

Our species may well be in a transitional evolutionary phase wherein we either use our minds to survive or become extinct in consequence of idiotic religious behavior.-Baubles of Blasphemy-Edwin F. Kagin

The other part is that so much of what we believe we learn 'at our mother's knee'. Especially back in the day when child rearing was 'women's work'. Today's world is breaking away from those conventions, but back then those who controlled the women, controlled society.

The other part is, of course, sexual. Of course we, as men, would like to have control over how and when we have sex. Christian law used to blame the WOMAN when she got raped! Can you imagine what kind of messages that sends to young women?

These Fundies aren't pro-life, they're anti-woman.

When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

Having been a fundie, I can tell you that you are absolutely correct. Hell, fundamentalism can even turn a woman into a misogynist. It can twist your mind that much.

Our species may well be in a transitional evolutionary phase wherein we either use our minds to survive or become extinct in consequence of idiotic religious behavior.-Baubles of Blasphemy-Edwin F. Kagin

Because we are tribal, mater. Deep within our psyche, we wish to belong. We wish to have a group to identify with, a group that shares our values, that we have a common experience with.

In the end, God is a result of Evolution.

Those with strong tribal instincts made it in the world because they learned to work together to solve problems. It is those same instincts that drive us to seek out other skeptics...Mormons, Methodists...et cetera ad nauseum. It is the same drive that teens have to get piercings, or all wear the same brand of shoes. It is when we all respond to the same cues that we get a sense of belonging.

The very instincts that drove us together to form civilizations and kingdoms and nations are the same forces that divide us. Which is why I worry not about which version of blue mud in in vogue to rub into one's belly button. It is transitory. Civilization is not.

We have had very little time to try to get beyond our tribal inhibitions. Evolution takes time, and as those tribal instincts take a backseat as a selectiing factor, we will see less of it, with any luck.

One must take the long view.

When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

mater deum wrote:I don't get how religion can be so poisonous and yet still survive. Can we ever shake free of it? Some of us have , I know. But what would a 100% secular humanist society look like? To me- That's heaven. No invisible force making you be good, or else. How about a society that can teach real ethics? A society that could really pursue science? A society with freedom for all ?(No double standards for men and women or straight or gay people) I just don't understand why people waste one day per week on a fantasy that can't possibly be mentally healthy for them. I agree with Dawkins- It's a virus.

Part of the reason religion survives despite being so poisionous is that it goes out of the way to make itself look benign. Religion promises that you will become a better, more fulfilled person by following its tenets. Unless you take an objective look at it before you become part of it (and how many people do that?), it is easy to be totally fooled.

Once you are part of it, it is difficult to take an objective look. Factor in the inevitable brainwashing, and most people are hooked for life on religion/god/church. It is a difficult meme to free yourself of.

And it is not just the belief system. There are also social factors. You have the opportunity to become involved in service and social activities. You make friends with other religious folk, and start spending less time with friends who are not so religious. After a while, it is easy to forget that not everyone believes as you do, because you are surrounded by people to do.

The people who mostly make christianty a Sunday thing are not the ones you have to worry about so much. Yes, their beliefs are irrational. But belief is just part of the background of their lives. They claim christianty because it makes them feel good or they grew up with it or it gives them standing in the community. They need to belong to something and have picked church.

The ones you have to worry about are those who do not just pay lip service to serving god with all their heart, soul and mind. These are the ones who go out of their way to try to press their agenda on the rest of society. These are the people who make sure they attend school board meetings, protest outside of abortion clinics, rally against gay rights, etc.... Their numbers may be small, but they are very vocal and they are the ones that people pay attention too.

But there is always hope. Even the most hard-core of true believers can shake off the shakles of religion and walk in the true light of rationality. Exhibit A-me.

Our species may well be in a transitional evolutionary phase wherein we either use our minds to survive or become extinct in consequence of idiotic religious behavior.-Baubles of Blasphemy-Edwin F. Kagin

I did just read of 2 priests in Fort Lauderdale Florida who were convicted and/or defrocked of using church funds for Vegas gambling sprees, prostititutes, trips, luxury items, etc. I know Catholics (the religion I was raised in) will say "a few bad apples..."--But if the basic premise of Catholicism isn't true, then they are all guilty of spreading ignorance, lies, and fear, in the name of "good". All preachers and priests are guilty of defrauding their flock as far as I'm concerned.

Articulett's statements are mostly a bunch of " I don't like that, so it's not true" type of reasoning. and then we have the twisted memories from childhood to deal with, such as her repeated offering that the Bible says Jesus can appear as a beggar to us, despite that this is not found in the Bible. Basically, we have an untruth factory running off here, and under the umbrella of "a skeptic", likely it gives a poor impression for any doubters visiting this site. They find identifiable untruths about the Bible and hate mongering. This is surely not what we desire doubters to find here.

And yet, I often wished there was someone that would have prodded my thinking in that direction a lot earlier in life; I hope I can be that provacative support for someone else trying to make sense of the nonsense

if it has hatemail from true believers, then I'm sure I'll eat it up. I just finished Sam Harris' letters to a Christian Nation which echos much of the discomfort I have with religion and the holier than thou. I find true heroes in Harris, Dawkins, and Dennett for having the guts to say what I'm to afraid to say in person

Exactly my point; when Articulett spews untruth about the Bible, young or old doubters may easily get the impressiuon that atheists and skeptics do not care about facts or truth - just that they hate Christians.

She will never help anyone like this, but could very well drive beginnning doubters away from futher investigation.

It is more effective when speaking about things that concern religion if we actually spend the time to find out facts. Articulett gives incorrect Biblical information as a routine part of the rant, and ususally a good helping of anti-male propaganda. It tends to give the appearance of Atheists and skeptics being ignorant and unfair, as she posts mucho trash and nobody seems to notice the errors in fact and logic.

would it not be more productive and less misleading to examine evidence? such as examining this:

It is said that Jewish law does not subscribe to the idea of the guilt of sin being transferred to progeny. Punishment may be felt by the progeny, as when the father loses his property, family rights, or his own life. But the progeny are not held guilty.

end of story.

Last edited by brainfart on Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:02 pm, edited 5 times in total.

I find reason to be savific and I should use it more than yell at my computer! We all have shown the nonsense of salvation and such. Just look at those cannibal Christians,vampires! They eat wafers and drink wine that are the flesh and blood of Yeshua , yet would deny that they are cannibal vampires , as it were. I find it good that I started this thread. I wish others who have not participated would do so. There are many who view these threads but few who post. Please respond to my other threads to better my comments and those of others there. It takes emotions to get theists to change; philosophy and science hardly do get them to give up their superstition. [ Articulett, if some man has so hurt you , I' m so sorry. I value your contributions and wish we could meet in person!] Sin is a religious notion that we can do without.Sin is what one does that a god does not like and Yahweh is a psychopath who has no right to demand anything of us if there really were one . Wrongdoing is our term.Michael Shermer's 'The Science of Good and Evil" shows a rational, objective morality, not the subjective one of those ignorant bigots of the Buy-bull. Do see my thread on inverse morality! Look at all those who declare themselves such sinners! Do testimonies in church or penitence before a priest do anygood? Does the notion of sin keep others in bondage? We need to look at these two questions . I wish Shermer would!

Reason saves! Logic is the bane of theists.Fr. G riggs rests in his Socratic ignorance.and humble ' Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Morgan-L.G. Lamberth "Religion is mythinformation.' Englishman " God is in a worse position than the tin man who had a body to which a mind could enters whilst He has neither." " God is that married bachelor and so cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!" carneades.aimoo.com

skeptic griggsy wrote:I find reason to be savific and I should use it more than yell at my computer! We all have shown the nonsense of salvation and such. Just look at those cannibal Christians,vampires! They eat wafers and drink wine that are the flesh and blood of Yeshua , yet would deny that they are cannibal vampires , as it were. I find it good that I started this thread. I wish others who have not participated would do so. There are many who view these threads but few who post. Please respond to my other threads to better my comments and those of others there. It takes emotions to get theists to change; philosophy and science hardly do get them to give up their superstition. [ Articulett, if some man has so hurt you , I' m so sorry. I value your contributions and wish we could meet in person!] Sin is a religious notion that we can do without.Sin is what one does that a god does not like and Yahweh is a psychopath who has no right to demand anything of us if there really were one . Wrongdoing is our term.Michael Shermer's 'The Science of Good and Evil" shows a rational, objective morality, not the subjective one of those ignorant bigots of the Buy-bull. Do see my thread on inverse morality! Look at all those who declare themselves such sinners! Do testimonies in church or penitence before a priest do anygood? Does the notion of sin keep others in bondage? We need to look at these two questions . I wish Shermer would!

No man has hurt me...I'm assuming you have read some extrapolation of Brainfart. I have him on ignore. The bible is misogynistic, to be sure...but the men in my life have not been (or rather, those that show such tendencies, are not men I have in my life might be more accurate.) Why, some of my best friends have been men--and all my lovers have been men too--imagine that!

Alll religions are harder on the ladies than the guys. What muslim woman is hoping to be rewarded with 72 virgins in heaven? What Mormon woman is looking forward to polygamy and being with her earthbound husband amidst multiple wives for ETERNITY? And the standards and punishments regarding women who speak against the status quo tend to be a bit harsher on planet earth too--but no-one has been able to shut me up (yet) --ha!

Regarding sin, to me it seemed that Catholic girls growing up were always afraid they might not be good enough--might be sinning too much--afraid of hell--(or getting a calling to be a nun!)--The boys seemed not to worry...I guess they figured that they were a shoe in for heaven. And I often wonder if that is the case in adulthood. I often wonder if religious men are more confident of their place in heaven than religious women. I would find this ironic given that most of the horrific acts I can think of are perpetuated by men more than women--warmongering, torture, killing, rape, pedophilia, threats of damnation, abuse of power/resources--

I think brainfart thinks I think most men do this. I don't think most men are violent nor do most men do cruel and horrible things. On the other hand, of those who commit really horrible crimes against humanity--the perpetrators are predominantly men...and the victims are often women and children. On the flip side, it is men who are our greatest leaders, and scientists...I hope that women will help close those ranks with time. I think religions often keep women in a subservient role.

Yeah...and why does god partake in all this death given his commandment not to kill (though he never specifies what you can't kill...and one wonders if an immortal soul makes actual killing impossible...)

I

f one is to persist in the belief of Original Sin, one must believe either:

A. God created all creation to suffer and die, except for Man, who chose it for himself.

B. God created all creation to live forever, but Man ruined it for everyone.

The first choice is implausible. Simply put, Man is a part of nature, built from the same material, sharing a huge percentage of DNA and exhibiting similar survival needs (food, water, shelter, sex). What change would have had to occur to transform a man and woman from immortal to mortal while still maintaining such an extraordinary similarity to the world in which they live? What kind of God would create a world in which predators feed off the young and helpless? What kind of God would create viruses to kill millions of species? Even more, what kind of God would create a world in which all the life-forms die except for one? That sounds way too bizarre, even for God.

The second choice is even worse because it makes God into a vindictive son-of-a-bitch. This God is even worse than a terrorist who kills all his hostages, their relatives, shoots their pets, then pisses on their lawn. If this were the correct scenario, God essentially said to Adam “Look, I told you not to do that; but you did it anyway. Now not only am I going to kill you and Eve. I’m also gonna kill every living thing on the planet. And not just once. No. I’m gonna make death permanent. Now, don’t you wish you listened to me, Buddy?” (Pack your bags, we’re going on a guilt trip...)

This was always weird to me. I wouldn't create a life if I felt it could suffer forever. And I feel guilty when I punish my dog because she got into something she shouldn't have--And I am not "all loving"--am I supposed to believe an "all loving guy would do this stuff? It's kind of sick to worship and make yourself devoted to such an insane invisible entity--and yet, given the consequences of not doing so, I tried my damndest.

I know that for many people, believers and nonbelievers alike, Genesis is “just a story.” But for centuries believers thought it was the literal truth, and many still do today. The fact that the Catholic Church (the largest Christian denomination in the world) still holds fast to the “death by Original Sin” concept is enough to show that the “story” is still taken seriously, if not literally. Certainly the Catholics are not alone in that regard. The concept of Original Sin is one of the foundations of Christianity, but when looked at logically, it is fundamentally nuts.

Or is it just me?

Nope, it's me too. I tried to get it to make sense. But original sin is supposed to be THE REASON god killed Jesus, right? And a christian is supposed to believe god killed his kid so they could be "saved"...that's the number one credo of the faith, right? But evolution shows that humans could not have been made fully formed by an invisible guy who speaks in their head and tells them not to do things. They evolved...and all the invisible voices they heard were from themselves just as they have been for all humans--a byproduct of language...and sometimes mental illness. I cannot believe how hard I tried to understand this crap, and I'm appalled that so many people that I consider smart in most regards, still buy into this crap. I want to know WHY? Is it because they are looking forward to "salvation" or are they just afraid to ask the questions. Whenever I probe, they get defensive...so I shut up. But how do grown adults believe this stuff with utter sincerity?

And, being raised Catholic, I had learned that original sin was a parable (after the church was forced to conced that evolution looked pretty damn factual)--but what is it a parable for? Sex? Questioning God? Defying god's orders? Was god just a voice in their heads? How are they to know it was god when they hadn't even invented language and writing and bibles yet? And why does god care what you eat or what you know--he could have just whipped up non hungry people happy to be ignorant, right? He could have been people obedient... and worshipful. Why would any all loving diety reward blind faith? silly belief? ignorance? fear? An unquestioning nature? These aren't traits I'd want to see in someone I was responsible for creating.

clarsct wrote:Because we are tribal, mater. Deep within our psyche, we wish to belong. We wish to have a group to identify with, a group that shares our values, that we have a common experience with.

Definately part of it.

mater deum wrote:I don't get how religion can be so poisonous and yet still survive. Can we ever shake free of it? Some of us have , I know. But what would a 100% secular humanist society look like? To me- That's heaven. No invisible force making you be good, or else. How about a society that can teach real ethics? A society that could really pursue science? A society with freedom for all ?(No double standards for men and women or straight or gay people) I just don't understand why people waste one day per week on a fantasy that can't possibly be mentally healthy for them. I agree with Dawkins- It's a virus.

And they make sure it sticks around with guilt and fear.

"Read it because we need more atheists, and nothing can get you there faster than reading the damn Bible." - Penn Jillette

Articulett wrote:And, being raised Catholic, I had learned that original sin was a parable (after the church was forced to conced that evolution looked pretty damn factual)

Actually, the official Church teaching is that Original Sin, while expressed in figurative language in the Bible, conveys the essentials of an actual event in human history.

Catholicism (and most Christianity) consider that Jesus' death, as a real event (to them at least), was meant to atone for the sin of Adam. In order to be consistent, then, the sin of Adam had to have been a real event.

Anyway, I would have liked to have been around to hear the conversation between God and Jesus regarding this...

we do have confusion over what is church teaching and what is scripture. this ignorance does not enhance argument to help persuade others. we also have ignorance about scripture and about teachings. so it's just a mess being presented here by Articulett and. it's a "bizzarro world" Christian forum.